Ron Paul Says Kennedy Was Murdered

[Rick Plant]

Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul said Kennedy was murdered.

RonPaul

Details the Day the 'Coup' Against American Democracy Was Cemented

November 22, 1963: "That was the day Kennedy was murdered by our government. You know, by the CIA."

Watch the clip here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1645946776237768705

[Richard Smith]

Lots of people believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative.  Like "Russian collusion" or that "police officers were murdered on Jan. 6."  Some even repeat these false claims long after being debunked.  Effectively they want them to be true.  Unless Paul has some evidence that no one else has uncovered in the last 60 years, his opinion is worthless.

[Jon Banks]

Lots of people believe things that are not true because it fits their desired narrative.  Like "Russian collusion" or that "police officers were murdered on Jan. 6."  Some even repeat these false claims long after being debunked.  Effectively they want them to be true.  Unless Paul has some evidence that no one else has uncovered in the last 60 years, his opinion is worthless.

It may never be proven but it's plausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job the same way that it's plausible that the Biden administration had the Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged.

Conspiracy Theories have varying degrees of plausibility. Each one should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes CT's are proven to be true. Examples:

- Watergate
- COINTELPRO
- MKULTRA
- The Pentagon Papers
- Iran Contra

[Richard Smith]

It may never be proven but it's plausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job the same way that it's plausible that the Biden administration had the Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged.

Conspiracy Theories have varying degrees of plausibility. Each one should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes CT's are proven to be true. Examples:

- Watergate
- COINTELPRO
- MKULTRA
- The Pentagon Papers
- Iran Contra

There certainly have been conspiracies in history.  Like the conspiracy to kill Lincoln.  This isn't just about whether a conspiracy theory is "plausible" but whether the evidence supports the theory.  In some instance, like Oswald's guilt there is overwhelming evidence to link him to the crime.  Absent a time machine, there couldn't be much more evidence to support his guilt than exists.  It is overwhelming.  In contrast, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else after several government investigations and CTers beating the bushes for every detail over the last 60 years.  The most investigated criminal act in history.  There are certainly some things we can never know with certainty because only Oswald could know, and because he was in the process of committing a crime, he took measures to conceal certain of his acts.  But that doesn't cast any doubt on the totality evidence that links him to crime.  There is no perfect knowledge of events in human history.

I would also take issue with the contention that it is "plausible" that any of the typical parties (e.g. CIA, FBI, LBJ) would go to the extreme risk of assassinating the President, covering it up, and framing Oswald.  And successfully get away with it.  All the governmental conspiracies you mention eventually came to light through evidence.  Leaks abound in DC.  Quite a tall task.  It is absurd in my opinion for CTers to suggest that LBJ or the FBI under Hoover was behind this extreme act.   Not plausible and more importantly no evidence of such after nearly six decades.  In the case of the Russian pipeline, the US government has suppressed the evidence that supports their claim that the Russians blew up the pipeline.  In the absence of any such evidence, then we must rely on common sense.  And it is indeed "plausible" in that context to surmise that the US or some NATO country was responsible and have lied about it.  In fact, Biden promised to "end" the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine.  So that is certainly plausible.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It may never be proven but it's plausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job the same way that it's plausible that the Biden administration had the Nord Stream pipelines sabotaged.

Conspiracy Theories have varying degrees of plausibility. Each one should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes CT's are proven to be true. Examples:

- Watergate
- COINTELPRO
- MKULTRA
- The Pentagon Papers
- Iran Contra

All exposed by "the government" or by the media. In this case we're talking about planning the assassination of the president - in secret; everyone consulted went along - carrying it out - in secret, everyone went along - and then covering it up - in secret, everyone including people years/decades later, went along with the coverup. People decades later covered this up? Even today, right now?

Let's take the Nordstream bombing as an example. Imagine that over the next 50+ years the government and media conduct multiple investigations into the bombing. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, several generations of reporters in the media, historians and investigative journalists all investigating this.

Do you think the act would have been kept secret? Why would people in the Pentagon or CIA 50 years from now cover it up? For what purpose? For what benefit? There is none.

What you're claiming happen couldn't happen. Not covered up for half a century by multiple generations of Americans who have no interest in doing so. In fact, the benefit would be not to cover it up but expose it. Imagine the people in the CIA or Pentagon who revealed this? They'd be heroes, celebrated for their act.

If all you can see is "the government" and "the CIA" and "the media" and not see all sorts of people with all sorts of interests and backgrounds then I can understand why one would think "they" did this. But there is no "they", it's not a blob or single entity. It's all sorts of people with various interests. You cannot get generations of people - real human beings - to do what is proposed. Even worse for the proponents, there's no evidence for it.

[Richard Smith]

When you step back from this case and the noise from the CTers and contrarians, it is very simple.  The evidence links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the crime.  That evidence derives from multiple different sources and circumstances dating back many months in some cases.  No individual or organizations could have concocted or controlled that narrative to bring all this together.  Certainly not the same bunglers who couldn't assassinate Castro.  There is no credible evidence to this date that links Oswald to any other individual or organization in the commission of this crime.  CTers can't even agree on a counternarrative.  In fact, there are a multitude of inconsistent theories.  This case has devolved into an endless game of whack-a-mole in which CTers go from random point to point contending any real or more often imagined ambiguity suggests a conspiracy by default. 

[Jack Trojan]

When you step back from this case and the noise from the CTers and contrarians, it is very simple.  The evidence links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the crime.  That evidence derives from multiple different sources and circumstances dating back many months in some cases.  No individual or organizations could have concocted or controlled that narrative to bring all this together.  Certainly not the same bunglers who couldn't assassinate Castro.  There is no credible evidence to this date that links Oswald to any other individual or organization in the commission of this crime.  CTers can't even agree on a counternarrative.  In fact, there are a multitude of inconsistent theories.  This case has devolved into an endless game of whack-a-mole in which CTers go from random point to point contending any real or more often imagined ambiguity suggests a conspiracy by default. 

Sure, but aren't you Q-tards up to your eyeballs in conspiracy nonsense yourselves? Oh...I get it, Q is just the disinformation branch of the KGB & the CIA. Odd why the JFK assassination is the only conspiracy you MAGATs don't embrace. Especially since it was supposedly carried out by the Deep State. Isn't that your bread and butter? Curious what the link could be between Q and the JFK assassination? My guess is that Q is the tin-foil hat conspiracy disinformation branch of your ultra-secret 4th Reich movement to take over the world thru coups and autocracy. Re JFK, Allen Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt were Nazis. You do the math. But that's just a guess. Am I close?

[Richard Smith]

Sure, but aren't you Q-tards up to your eyeballs in conspiracy nonsense yourselves? Oh...I get it, Q is just the disinformation branch of the KGB & the CIA. Odd why the JFK assassination is the only conspiracy you MAGATs don't embrace. Especially since it was supposedly carried out by the Deep State. Isn't that your bread and butter? Curious what the link could be between Q and the JFK assassination? My guess is that Q is the tin-foil hat conspiracy disinformation branch of your ultra-secret 4th Reich movement to take over the world thru coups and autocracy. Re JFK, Allen Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt were Nazis. You do the math. But that's just a guess. Am I close?

I'm not sure what you are rambling about here.  Who said anything about "Q"?  If I had a conspiracy theory about Q, it would be that it is the creation of leftists to make Trump supporters look insane.  There are a few insane people of every political bent but the Q story is mostly leftist mass and social media driven to give the impression that any dissenter to the leftist cause is a lunatic.  I've never met or heard of anyone who believes in whatever "Q" is supposed to be.  Trump received 75 million or so votes.  Of those, there are a handful of such loons.  Certainly many less than those on the left who still believe in "russian collusion" and that police officers were killed on Jan. 6.